affiliate_avantlink_verify_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses the return shape ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}) and implies a lightweight, read-only verification via 'minimal authenticated endpoint.' It could add more about side effects or rate limits, but the core behavior is well communicated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly packed sentences—purpose, usage timing, and return format—with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and essential context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with zero parameters and no output schema, this description is fully sufficient: it covers what, when, and what to expect, plus how it relates to a broader diagnostic tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty (no parameters), so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action—'Verify the configured credentials for AvantLink are valid'—and the method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint'). It clearly distinguishes this from other verify_auth tools by naming AvantLink and from diagnostic tools by specifying its narrow function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit scenarios for use: 'at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error.' It also points to an alternative/complementary tool, affiliate_run_diagnostic, for fuller health checks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.